Notice under 15A(3) and Hearing under 15A(5)

Two sub-sections carry the victim's voice into court, and they are distinct rights, not one right described twice. Section 15A(3) is the notice: reasonable, accurate and timely intimation of every court proceeding, including bail, with the Special Public Prosecutor or the State bound to give it. Section 15A(5) is the hearing: the entitlement to be heard at bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction and sentence, with written submissions on conviction, acquittal or sentencing. Both are mandatory, but they fail differently, are cured differently, and one has an exception the other lacks. This note compares them clause by clause.

Figure 1: Notice under s.15A(3) and hearing under s.15A(5)

1. The Two Texts

• Notice: three qualities and a duty. The notice must be reasonable, in a form the victim can act on; accurate, stating what is listed and when; and timely, leaving room to prepare. The duty to inform lies on the Special Public Prosecutor or the State, not on the victim to inquire.
• Hearing: six stages and a pen. Bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction and sentence, with connected proceedings, plus the right to file written submissions on conviction, acquittal or sentencing, which lets a victim who cannot attend still be heard on paper.
• Both belong to the victim or dependant. Each sub-section opens with 'a victim or his dependent', so the family holds the rights where the victim is dead, injured or intimidated (Topic 69).

2. Both Mandatory, Differently Shaped

• The controlling case. In Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan (2021), the Supreme Court held sub-sections (3) and (5) mandatory and set aside bail granted without notice to the victim, holding that a later opportunity, on a cancellation application, does not cure the defect.
• Non-est. The Kerala High Court, in the Walayar lynching case, treated bail granted without the Section 15A(3) notice as non-est and cancelled it (State of Kerala v. Anu, 2026).
• A hearing, not a veto. In Lakshmanan v. State (2025 INSC 1483), the Court held that the provisions guarantee an opportunity to be heard, not a right to a favourable outcome: bail is not cancelled merely because the victim's objections were rejected after a genuine hearing.
• The bailable-offence limit. The Gujarat High Court has held that where only bailable offences are alleged, the court need not wait for the victim before releasing the accused, since bail is then a matter of right (Hemal Ashwin Jain, 2020). The notice still goes; it is the waiting that yields.
• Interim protection. Courts have granted ad-interim protection while the notice reaches the victim, deciding finally only after the hearing, so the accused's liberty and the victim's voice both survive the interval (Topic 41).

Figure 2: A bail application with the victim in the frame

3. Working the Two Rights

• Sequence. Notice precedes and enables the hearing: an unheard victim who was never told cannot be blamed for silence, which is why the breach of (3) is fatal even where a hearing was theoretically open.
• Proof of compliance. Orders should record that notice went and the victim was heard or chose not to appear. A record silent on both invites the Hariram Bhambhi consequence.
• What the victim brings. At bail: threats, the accused's dominance, tampering attempts, protection gaps. At discharge: why the material discloses the offence. At sentence: the harm suffered and the relief position. The written-submission route serves victims who cannot safely attend.
• For the defence. Ensuring service on the victim protects the order: bail obtained without it is built on sand, and cancellation for that defect needs no supervening conduct.

4. Quick Revision

• s.15A(3). Reasonable, accurate, timely notice of every proceeding including bail; the SPP or State must inform.
• s.15A(5). Hearing at bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction, sentence; written submissions on conviction, acquittal, sentencing.
• Both mandatory. Hariram Bhambhi (2021); bail without notice non-est (Anu, 2026).
• The limit of (5). An opportunity, not a favourable outcome (Lakshmanan, 2025); bailable offences need no waiting (Hemal Ashwin Jain, 2020).

5. Frequently Asked Questions

Whose duty is it to notify the victim of a bail application?

The Special Public Prosecutor's or the State Government's, under Section 15A(3). The victim has no duty to keep watch on the court's lists.

Is bail granted without notice to the victim valid?

No. The requirement is mandatory, such bail has been set aside, and the Kerala High Court has treated it as non-est.

Can the victim insist that bail be refused after being heard?

No. Section 15A(5) guarantees the hearing; the decision remains the court's on the merits.

Can a victim who cannot attend still be heard?

Yes. Written submissions on conviction, acquittal or sentencing are part of Section 15A(5), and counsel or NGO assistance under Section 15A(12) can carry the victim's case.

6. Related Topics and Provisions

• Topic 32: Section 15A. The full rights framework.
• Topic 41: Bail. The hearing in the bail setting.
• Topic 69: Victim vs Dependant. Who holds the two rights.
• Topic 70: Victim Rights vs Witness Protection. Voice and shield distinguished.
• Sections 15A(3), (5), (12); Hariram Bhambhi (2021); Lakshmanan (2025). The provisions and cases discussed.